Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
1. Introduction
The scales of socioeconomic damages caused by an
earthquake depend to a great extent on the characteristics of
the strong ground motion. It has been well known that
earthquake ground motions results primarily from the three
factors, namely, source characteristics, propagation path of
waves, and local site conditions. Also, the Soil-Structure
Interaction (SSI) problem has become an important feature
of Structural Engineering with the advent of massive
constructions on soft soils such as nuclear power plants,
concrete and earth dams. Buildings, bridges, tunnels and
underground structures may also require particular attention
to be given to the problems of SSI.
The first significant structure where the dynamic
effect of soil was considered in the analysis in industry in
India was the 500MW turbine foundation for Singrauli
(Chowdhary, 2009).
The estimation of earthquake motions at the
site of a structure is the most important phase of seismic
design as well as retrofit of a structure. In classical methods
used in structural analysis, it is assumed that, the motion in
the foundation level of structure is equal to ground free
field motion. This assumption is correct only for the
structures resting on rock or very stiff soils. For the
structures constructed on soft soils, foundation motion is
usually different from the free field motion and a rocking
component caused by the support flexibility on horizontal
motion of foundation has been added. Traditionally, in
analysis of the rigid base structures, input motion at the
base of the structure is taken as equal to the free field
ground motion. In the case of a flexible-base structure, in
addition to the added rocking component to the horizontal
motion of the structure, a part of the structures vibrating
energy will transmit to the soil layer and can be dissipated
NCASE@2016
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047
Page 737
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047
Page 738
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
Agrawal et al[31]
Parameter
Particulars
Forms of
structure
Plane
Frame
Space
Frame
2.
Geometry of
superstructure
R. C.
Frame
Infill wall
NCASE@2016
Studies by various
researchers
Duncan and
Chang [33],
Jardine et al. [],
Hora [7], Kutanis
and Elmas [9],
Agrawal and Hora
[39]
Noorzaei [29],
Viladkar et al. [2],
Noorzaei et al. [3],
Swamy
Rajashekhar et al.
[4], Roy and Dutta
[5], Brown and Yu
[8],
Chore et al. [31],
Xiujuan et al. [],
Desai et al. [34]
Viladkar et al.
[36], Nataralan
and Vidivelli [],
Bhattacharya et
al. [37], Livaoglu
[38],
A. Massumi and
Tabatabaiefar
[15], Muberra
ESER
AYDEMIR,[16],
Shiji P.[19]
3.
5.
Hora [7],
Chrysostomou and
Asteris [30],
Types of
foundation
Domain
Other
Tall
Pallavi
Ravishankar,[21],
Lu et al. [10], S.T.
Karapetrou et al
[26]
Elevated
tanks
Chimney
Ramazan et al [12]
nuclear
reactor
Dan M. Ghiocel,
Roger G.
Ghanem[12]
Ostadan, F et
al[24]
Bridge
Shamsabadi et al
[21], Bezih et al
[27]
Y.X. Cai, P.L.
Gould , C.S. Desai
[34], Hokmabadi
A.S.,[20],
Pulikanti et al
[29],
Medina et al, [25],
Pile
Ganesh Kumar
T[40]
Isolated
Al-Shamrani and
Al-Mashary [30],
Roy and Dutta [5],
Bhattacharya et
al. [37], Agrawal
and Hora [39]
Raft
j Rajasankar et al,
[18], Noorzaei
[29], Thangaraj
and Ilamparuthi
[32], Viladkar et
al. [36], Wang et
al. [35]
Time
Domain
Frequency
domain
Suleyman Kocak
a, Yalcin Mengi b
[14]
stochastic
processes
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047
Page 739
6. Conclusions
The review of the current practice as applied in soilstructure interaction analysis leads to the following broad
conclusions.
1. To accurately estimate the response of structure, the
effect of soil structure interaction is needed to be
considered under the influence of both static and
dynamic loading.
2. The forces in superstructure, foundation and soil mass
are significantly altered due to the effect of soilstructure interaction. For accurate estimation of the
design force quantities, the interaction effect is needed
to be considered.
3. Load redistribution significantly modifies the total and
differential settlements. Settlements are found more in
the non-linear analysis.
4. Numerous investigators analysed the interaction
behaviour considering foundations as raft foundation,
isolated footing, grid foundation and pile foundation
etc.
5. The investigators have considered the soil mass as
homogenous, isotropic and behaving in linear and
nonlinear manner in the interaction analysis.
6. A limited number of studies have been conducted
considering the soil mass as elasto-plastic, visco-elastic
and visco plastic in interaction analyses.
7. The finite element method has proved to be a very
useful method for studying soil-structure interaction
effect with rigor. In fact, the technique becomes useful
to incorporate the effect of material nonlinearity,
nonhomogeneity and interface modeling of soil and
foundation.
8. To perform nonlinear soil-structure interaction
analysis, incremental iterative technique is found to be
the most suitable and general one.
9. For practical purpose Winkler hypothesis should at
least be employed instead of carrying out an analysis
with fixed base idealization of structures.
10. Soil-structure interaction may cause considerable
increase in seismic base shear of low-rise building
frames resting on isolated footings.
REFERENCES
i. Kramer, S. L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River,New Jersey (1996)
ii. M.N. Viladkar, J. Noorzaei, and P.N. Godbole,
Interactive analysis of a space frame-raft-soil system considering
soil nonlinearity Comput. Struct., 51, (1994), 343-356.
iii. J. Noorzaei, M.N. Viladkar, and P.N. Godbole,
Nonlinear soil-structure interaction in plane frames, Eng.
Comput., 11, 1994, 303-316.
iv. H.M. Rajashekhar Swamy, Krishnamoorthy, D.L.
Prabakhara, and S.S. Bhavikatti, Relevance of interface elements
in soil structure interaction analysis of three dimensional and
multiscale structure on raft foundation, Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng., 16, 2011, 199-218.
NCASE@2016
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
v. R. Roy, and S.C. Dutta, Differential settlement among
isolated footings of building frames: the problem, its estimation
and possible measures, Int. J. Appl. Mech. Eng., 6(1), 2001, 165186.
vi. C.S. Desai, H.V. Phan, and J.V. Perumpral, Mechanics
of three-dimensional soil-structure interaction, J. Eng. Mech.,
ASCE, 108(5), 1982, 731-747.
vii. M. Hora, Nonlinear interaction analysis of infilled
building frame-soil system, J. Struct. Eng., 33(4), 2006, 309-318.
viii. P.T. Brown, and Si K.R. Yu, Load sequence and
structure-foundation Interaction J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 112(3),
1986, 481-488.
ix. M. Kutanis, and M. Elmas, Non-linear seismic soil
structure interaction analysis based on the substructure method
in the time domain, Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci., 25, 2001, 617626.
x. X. Lu, B. Chen, P. Li and Y. Chen, Numerical Analysis
of Tall Buildings Considering Dynamic Soil-Structure
Interaction, J. Asian Archit. Build., 2(1), 2003, 1-8
xi. Y.X. Cai a,*, P.L. Gould b, C.S. Desai c Nonlinear
analysis of 3D seismic interaction of soilpilestructure, systems
and application Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199
xii. Dan M. Ghiocel, and Roger G. Ghanem, Stochastic
Finite-Element Analysis of Seismic SoilStructure Interaction
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 128, No. 1, January 1,
2002. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/2002/1-66
xiii. Anestis S. Veletsos,1 Member, ASCE, and Aiumolu M.
Prasad, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, No.1.4,
April, 1989. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/89/0004-0935
xiv. Suleyman Kocak a,*, Yalcin Mengi b A simple soil
structure interaction model Applied Mathematical Modelling 24
(2000) 607-635
xv. Massumi1 and H.R. Tabatabaiefar2 A simplified method
to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment
resisting building frames under influence of soilstructure
interaction, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30
(2010) 12591267
xvi. Muberra E.A., Soil Structure Interaction Effects On
Multistorey R/C Structures, International Journal Of
Electronics; Mechanical And Mechatronics Engineering Vol. 2
Num.3 pp.(298-303).
xvii. Rajasankar J., Iyer N. R., Yerraya Swamy B.,
Gopalakrishnan N., Chellapandi P., SSI analysis of a massive
concrete structure based on a novel convolution/deconvolution
technique, Sdhan Vol. 32, Part 3, June 2007, pp. 215234.
xviii. Shiji P. V., Suresh S., Joseph G., Effect of Soil
Structure Interaction in Seismic Loads of Framed Structures,
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Vol.
4, Issue 5, May-2013.
xix. Hokmabadi A.S., Fatahi B., Samali B. Seismic Response
of Superstructure on Soft Soil Considering Soil-Pile-Structure
Interaction, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013
xx. pallavi ravishankar, dr d neelima satyam, numerical
modelling to study soil structure interaction for tall asymetrical
building, international conference on earthquake geotechnical
engineering istanbul, turkey
xxi. anoosh shamsabadi1 and mike kapuskar, nonlinear
seismic soil-abutment-structure interaction analysis of skewed
bridges
xxii. ramazan livaolu1 and adem doangn an investigation
about the soil-structure interaction effects on sloshing response
of the elevated tanks the 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering october 12-17, 2008, beijing, china
xxiii. Ostadan, F., Arango, I., Oberholtzer, G., Hsiu, F.,
Radially Loaded Circular Tunnel Structure, IX Pan american
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047
Page 740
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
NCASE@2016
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047
Page 741